Previously killed myself with boom and bust, JD workouts and hovering around 18:1x and then a decline, build back up again, being obsessed with speed being my limiting factor and doing it all again.
Ah yes, here he comes. The man who knew all of this before this thread started, just forgot to tell anyone how to apply it to running. Or do it himself. Or share any of his training. Or basically provide anything useful until after the horse has bolted.
The man who can't keep himself away and actually thinks the audience here cares about a thing he says.
A man, who no doubt, as previously mentioned, likes to eat a snickers upside down so he can feel the d1ck vein texture on his tongue.
About the easy pace. The 70% of max heart rate will prob. work for most people. However it does not work that well for me. I know my max heartrate and if I run at 70% that pace indicates a lot faster 5k/10k than I could manage. I just go by an easy feel.
Approximate what is your HR % average when you just go by feel like that?
You're right. I should change my name to Captain Obvious.
I think that the real question is why so many runners don't seem to understand basic training principles. Lots of people in other endurance sports certainly fall on and off different training bandwagons, but they seem to better understand the downsides of inconsistency.
Maybe it is because runners get injured more frequently, such that folks just assume that not training is normal?
You're right. I should change my name to Captain Obvious.
I think that the real question is why so many runners don't seem to understand basic training principles. Lots of people in other endurance sports certainly fall on and off different training bandwagons, but they seem to better understand the downsides of inconsistency.
Maybe it is because runners get injured more frequently, such that folks just assume that not training is normal?
Absolutely correct what you say. Runners on this thread should follow the comeback of the old wizard js and learn how to proper handle basic training.It's a pitty he isn't more appreciated at this forum.It's absolutely insane how fast he improves!
You're right. I should change my name to Captain Obvious.
I think that the real question is why so many runners don't seem to understand basic training principles. Lots of people in other endurance sports certainly fall on and off different training bandwagons, but they seem to better understand the downsides of inconsistency.
Maybe it is because runners get injured more frequently, such that folks just assume that not training is normal?
Maybe there is just a higher population of runners compared with other sports, so its a base rate fallacy, married with that the consequences might appear sooner than other sports, as you allude to if I understand right.
Probably a bit of selection bias as well since running is easier to get into than most sports, and since its so popular with the general public now.
From the other sports I've done there is a similar tendency of boom and bust.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
You're right. I should change my name to Captain Obvious.
I think that the real question is why so many runners don't seem to understand basic training principles. Lots of people in other endurance sports certainly fall on and off different training bandwagons, but they seem to better understand the downsides of inconsistency.
Maybe it is because runners get injured more frequently, such that folks just assume that not training is normal?
Why didn’t you beat Sirpoc to it, and post up a thread like this years ago?
Why didn’t you beat Sirpoc to it, and publish a book for recreational runners.
Please don’t reply with a link to one of these useless studies.
You're right. I should change my name to Captain Obvious.
I think that the real question is why so many runners don't seem to understand basic training principles. Lots of people in other endurance sports certainly fall on and off different training bandwagons, but they seem to better understand the downsides of inconsistency.
Maybe it is because runners get injured more frequently, such that folks just assume that not training is normal?
Maybe there is just a higher population of runners compared with other sports, so its a base rate fallacy, married with that the consequences might appear sooner than other sports, as you allude to if I understand right.
Probably a bit of selection bias as well since running is easier to get into than most sports, and since its so popular with the general public now.
From the other sports I've done there is a similar tendency of boom and bust.
I don’t think the “boom and bust” issue is a running thing or even a sports thing, I think it is just human nature. We go into these new pursuit with so much enthusiasm and motivate that it is unsustainable.
That's a good point, and of course those posting here aren't a random sample either.
Because as we discover something in sport science the academics measure it to death especially easy stuff and when they don’t do the study themselves they post a meta study of previous studies. vo2max being the primary example and half the studies on running reference this one metric (which is not relevant to most endurance training In itself) which you can find and ready wonderful studies that are almost all along the lines of a 6 week study that shows runners who only did vo2max workouts showed the biggest improvement vs the control group and this its a major marker in performance when they run a 1k/mile or 3k/5k time trial.
Coaches implement this “scientific advice” and realise that vo2max workouts are not sustainable so implement down weeks, then Daniels publishes his book on paces and percentage of vo2max and it’s written into the history and we get a generation of vo2max down week training we now have to undo.
Many get the concept of how to run for Runner world magazine publishes university research more frequently on quick fix vo2max (as it’s easier for university students to do this research) than other more difficult to implement topics for the layperson. Or coaches that typically follow Daniel training when ncaa or through running clubs.
And you wonder why we have the training we do, academia is half the problem as it studies cause this misinformation and yet universities still accept student work on vo2max and the media still use it to fill columns.
So yes runners are clueless because of runnerareclueless and like people you.
And you wonder why we have the training we do, academia is half the problem as it studies cause this misinformation and yet universities still accept student work on vo2max and the media still use it to fill columns.
It's not that it is misinformation per se, it's true within the confines and assumptions of the study.
It's just that the vast majority that report on the result of the study have no idea of how to put it in context.
-
One context as already mention is students with limited budget and time trying to pass in order to get on with their lives, so the study is a very limited one examining only a minuscule part of what is relevant.
Another context that is just as important is that academia rewards proper use of scientific method and often does not care about what the result brings to the table as long as the process and method was proper.
-
With regards to being heavy on proper method, but light on actual usefulness:
In my own field I remember sitting at a conference where 3 PhD's confidently presented their work on what is necessary to ensure a thriving tourism sector in their country.
45 minutes of discussing different regression models and why they settled on their model choice. Then very thorough discussion on how the model performed on statistical metrics (very high correlation and thus brilliant choice of model!)
And then came the big reveal.
In order to have a thriving tourism sector you need an airport with lots active airplane routes, so you actually can bring in people from abroad. Then it is very important that you have enough hotels to accommodate those people.
No sh*t Sherlock :D
But ok ... The 3 PhD's got their degrees and also got to travel to Venice and confidently present their result, so all is good in Academia :)
-
RAC made me think of this pages back when he went on and on about getting greater adaptations when running above LT1 then below, but never once spoke about how you balance it out.
In my example the act of investing in new airline routes to your airport and opening a ton of new hotels might well improve your tourism sector, but it might also bankrupt it.
Same with spamming +LT1 training .. Might be great or might wreck you.
What is interesting about MSN is that it makes an attempt at how to balance everything and make training sustainable indefinitely. Every critic of it is always going on about how you leave stuff on the table by not sharpening (X) or not periodizing .. and that may be true. But the average guy here is not young anymore and will gladly leave a bit on the table in order to ensure consistency and longevity.
-
I get doing your best to PR. That makes running fun. But end of day neither my workplace or kids are going to get any joy out of me running a 14:59 or 2:29:59 marathon. So once you're at a certain age not getting hurt is more important that the size of the PR. As long as you improve (or decline slower depending on your age).
-
The main critisism of NSM basically comes down to "Oh noes .. You could be even faster, if you took more risk .. Don't you want to be Kipchoge?????"
I realize that I took it a bit over the top by putting in Kipchoge's name .. that was just for dramatic effect.
Ultimately if you just bring it down to simply:
You could be even faster, if you took more risk!
Already that becomes silly for the vast majority of runners at a certain age. By saying this I still leave room for the rare runner for whom the risk is worth it.
And yeah .. He will be faster if he stays injury free and that is fine! :)
I think you're pointing your finger in the wrong direction. It's the coaches and influencers who are to blame for mis-/over- interpreting scientific research, not those generating the data in the first place.
RAC made me think of this pages back when he went on and on about getting greater adaptations when running above LT1 then below, but never once spoke about how you balance it out.
Until you start paying me, that's not my job or responsibility.
RAC made me think of this pages back when he went on and on about getting greater adaptations when running above LT1 then below, but never once spoke about how you balance it out.
But that’s not his job, and where you balance out is completely different than everyone else. That’s the entire point of using something like a scoring system and load management to find the balance point.
Even if two athletes have identical physiology, life stress between the two can be completely different and have a marked impact on performance and training has to consider that.
That’s where good coaches come in. They can take a helicopter view of your life and training to find the “best” daily training dose.